AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

ALAC Liaisons and Representatives 

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large FY25 Strategic Priority Activities

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 22 Next »

Monday, 10 June 2024

AFRALO Roundtable: Enhancing Internet Infrastructure in Africa

High-Level Notes

Nii Quaynor - Need short and long term plans. The short-term plans need to fit into longer term plans. 

Alan Barrett - Suggested more training is needed to reduce scope for human mistakes. It is important to have solid infrastructure. For example, need more than two name-servers. 

Mr. Audace Niyonkuru- Protecting the digital economy is important. Most pressing cybersecurity is growing mistrust from end users. It makes changes very hard. What is needed is more capacity building and a space for dialogue for end users and service providers. 

Dr. Catherine Adeya - Need for digital literacy and lack of local language content are key factors. There are over 3,000 local African languages. Local content is key. 

Bukola Orenti/Dr. Mattagoro - Provided feedback on ALS survey. 

Yaovi Atohoun - Discussed the Coalition for Digital Africa. 

Questions: 

Claire Craig - Commented that the ALS survey was useful for other regions. Also asked to how many people was the survey sent. 


Action Items 

  • Conclusion: (which may be useful to add to the AFRALO-AFRICANN statement) 

    Recommendations to ICANN org 

    •    What can ICANN org and ICANN stakeholders do to improve internet infrastructure?

    •    ICANN can help policy makes and legislators by building the capacity of legislators so they themselves can explain and bring what we need to do in Africa. ICANN can assist by highlighting policies to assist the private sector. 

    •    Raise awareness, increase root instances and servers, as the next billion users will come from Africa, there will be questions about accessibility and what it means to be connected.

    •    DNS infrastructure relies heavily on the underlying Internet infrastructure and anything that we can do to improve implement infrastructure will help the DNS, make more exchange points, putting more links between borders between countries , Increase root servers instances and resolvers.

    your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date

AFRALO: Building a Multilingual Internet: Opportunities and Challenges

High-Level Notes

Can you share with us some successful examples of domain names and email addresses being used in local languages within Africa?

  • Sarmad: There are many languages written in latin script beyond a-z. Many languages are used across the continent, written in local scripts.
    • To make the internet accessible to the people who use these languages and scripts it is important to support these in the Domain Name System
    • Local language domain names during covid used to disseminate local language health and safety information to local communities
    • Domain names using local language to promote local tourism
    • Insurance companies using local language domain names to reach local communities

Could you highlight the roadmap for the successful implementation of UA in Africa, emphasizing the impact of these initiatives? How might we replicate these initiatives?

  • Prepare future engineers to implement UA principles in Africa
  • Develop the computer science curricula in universities
  • If not preparing future students, we will not see much increase in UA
  • We have the technology, but we are still facing the number of domains created in IDNs. 
  • It is a multistakeholder effort to be done, academia has a role.
  • Bring universities to our meetings so they can see how UA can be implemented

What strategies have been effective in overcoming the challenges associated with adopting UA in your country?

  • Catherine: AAU project is twofold: addressing technical gap and collaboration with universities to integrate IDN and teaching UA in curriculum 
    • ICANN has collaborated with community to organize UA Days
    • Encourage others to look at UA website to see what is happening in Africa in UA context
  • Nodumo: survey of 421 member universities to find out where they are in their emails and website UA readiness
    • We have been focussed on education and training, 1 on 1 technical support to show them how to make websites and emails compliant
    • Also awareness raising through UA Days, focus on ensuring education community and young people are involved in those engagements
    • There is a lot of enthusiasm.
    • Another strategy is piloting a UA curricula and having universities implement and provide feedback
    • Incentives and recognition is important, recognizing those universities who go the extra mile
    • Requires a lot of monitoring
  • Yaovi: Any time we talk about UA, know it is related to domain names and email addresses, not content. 
    • Community involved in awareness and education, important for roadmap
    • Ongoing work to have resources and modules available
    • Technical readiness also important
    • We have longer domain names and those in other scripts, websites should be ready to receive emails non-ASCII emails we are already using
    • Policy focus is also important
    • Collaboration and community involvement

Could you share a success story or a particular challenge you faced while promoting UA adoption?

  • Amina: in Nigeria second UA Day collaboration
    • UA session went smoothly
    • One challenge that participants had was difficulty differentiating UA domain names and content. Also confusing UA with universal access
    • Many were interested in benefits that come with UA
    • Needs to be more awareness, amplified voice, stakeholders coming together

How important are collaborations and partnerships in advancing multilingual capabilities on the Internet? Could you provide an example of a successful partnership?

  • Hon. Lydia: when we put our heads together we can achieve UA
  • APNIC: we will take this as a priority area, starting with our government websites. Look forward to further collaboration
  • Catherine: encourage everyone to play their part in UA in Africa. Look at it from ICANN perspective, community and stakeholders. Capacity building programs. Continue to work with AAU.

What are the next steps for stakeholders in supporting a multilingual landscape in Africa?

  • Nodumo: Continue working with universities. We have over 2,000 universities, so this needs to new scaled up so the lessons we learn can ensure others come on board. Make sure not implemented only by specific universities

Action Items 

  • No Action Items recorded.

At-Large Leadership Welcome Session

High-Level Notes

  • The At-Large Community will be focusing on the different sessions taking place at ICANN80. 
  • A lot of sessions will be on Next Round along with standing topics like DNS abuse. 
  • Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board Member, provided an update on the Board's recent meeting and other issues of concern. The Board had a workshop had that focused on private contention resolution. No conclusion has been rached so far regarding how the Board will proceed with this. Board is studying options that have been submitted and is inclined to prevent private contention resolution.
  • The Board has appointed Hadia Elminiawi as a member of the SSAC. 
  • The Board is adopting a resolution on GAC advice regarding contention resolution. 
  • Where are we in terms of the ombuds search? 
    • The person has been selected and is in the contracting process 
  • What happened to the resolution on WS2?
    • we have failed to comply with this recommendation and several on the board are pushing for this happen as it was recommended by the group. 
  • Regarding layoffs, how was number selected, was there a framework
    • No additional details can be provided at this time as it is an operational issue. The Board was informed that this would happen but the Board was provided with detailed criteria.  
  • Was anyone within At-Large support impacted? 
    • No, At-Large support was not impacted. 
  • Is there anything At-Large can do to help prevent private resolution? Has the Board considered making the auctions be part of the application process?
    • No, the Board has not considered this, though it is an interesting solution. The Board believes that the At-Large has contributed and has been helpful with the Next Round. 
  • Regarding RVCs, Board welcomes RVCs but will stay away from RVCs concerning content.  
  • The At-Large Policy Subject Matter Experts provide an overview of the policy topics. 
  • The GNSO council will be discussing the SPIRT Charter at its upcoming meeting. Singular/Plural issue is not on the agenda. 
  • The At-Large community went over the session reports and made a call for volunteers for rapporteurs. 
  • The At-Large community discussed the At-Large Campaign Playbook. The playbook is meant to systematize the process for requesting At-Large participation in campaigns. 
  • Reminder that At-Large sessions are listed on the At-Large Agenda Wiki page. Please reach out to staff with any questions. 

Action Items 

  • Rapporteurs to submit reports to the At-Large wiki page before the At-Large Wrap-Up session on 13 June 2024


Tuesday, 11 June 2024

At-Large, Fellows and NextGen Interaction

High-Level Notes

Ergas Ramaj (ER) noted that it is key to have a level of Return on Investment for the Fellowship and NextGen Programs. 

ER noted that defining participation is important. Fellows may participate up to 3 ICANN Public Meetings. 

The first public meeting is focused on intent. The second and third Public Meeting is more on participation. 

There were two public comments to confirm whether the Fellowship and NextGen programs were fit for purpose. 

The SOACs define the target the objectives for diversity. The program support team speak with the SOACs to learn about their diversity targets and needs and wants. 

Mentorship programs are key to ensure that the Fellows and New Comer students find their way in the journey. 

What is the bridge for Fellows/Next Gen to the SOACs? Is it sufficient? How can it be improved? 

Questions and answers covered many issues of the Fellowship and NextGen Programs. 


Action Items 

  • The Fellows to consider self-organizing to create a platform to share their journeys. 
  • Jonathan Zuck and Claire Craig to schedule an At-Large webinar with the Fellows/NextGen in August 2024. 
  • Jonathan Zuck and Gisella Gruber to schedule an At-Large Session with the Fellows/NextGen at ICANN81. 


At-Large Collaboration in the New gTLD Program Outreach and Engagement Plan

High-Level Notes

  • At-Large Leadership noted that the ALAC and At-Large community is a good place to help with Next Round Outreach and engagement due to its vast network. 
  • In the SubPro final report, the GNSO underscored the importance of creating early awareness of the program. The current plan tries to ensure as much as possible drive inclusivity. ICANN org is looking for input on the Outreach and Engagement (O&E) plan to refine the plan going forward. 
  • There are 5 phases to the O&E campaign. Early awareness focussed on UA and IDNs. There was a series of mini campaigns in countries that would be interested in the Next Round and the ASP 
    • Next phase is Community level awareness. This phase involves the GSE team and community and will focus on the ASP 
    • Third phase is Strategic engagement in a formalised manner. Media and public relations will be brought into this and will focus heavily on the Next Round. This will include outreach to organizations outside of the ICANN community 
    • Fourth phase will focus on preparing applicants to submit their gTLD applications. 
    • Last phase is Post-Assessment to evaluate whether the campaign achieved its objectives to allow for course correction in the future
  • The ICANN community is an important ally in identifying and engaging potential applicants. 
    • O&E materials and resources will be provide by ICANN org. There will be a website containing use cases and training modules along with a variety of other materials that can be shared. Materials will be translated into the ICANN languages 
  • The overall goals of the program is to foster diversity, encourage competition, and enhance the utility of the DNS  
  • Part of engagement will be to identify engagement possibilities and opportunities for potential applicants and interested organizations to participate in Next Round Program 
  • ICANN org will kick off the grassroots campaign to leverage community relationships. ICANN org will launch the formal campaign in October 2024 
    • Specific milestones are listed in the timeline below
    • Target audience is registrars, civil society, business and entrepreneurs, local governments, public authorities IGOs, and Brands
  • ICANN org will publish quarterly reports on the engagement activities conducted by ICANN org. The Community will be able to provide comments on gaps that may exist 
  • O&E messages from ICANN org will include:
    • highlight the importance of having a New gTLD
    • showcase how brand TLD can extend brand identity 
    • having control of brand provides security protects 
    • highlight safeguard intellectual property rights in the DNS 
  • Org has developed KPIs from a communications perspective
    •  includes media reach,social media engagement, speaking opportunities outside of GSE capacity-building efforts, metrics measurements (clicks, inquiries, registration for more info, etc) 
  • Org has development KPIs for ASP, RSP, and the Next Round Program in general 
    • include applications received, diversity of applicant pool, number of engagement activities, etc. 
  • Successful application should be a metric to measure. 
    • Org cannot guarantee the number of applications received will be successful 
    • Org wants to ensure that information provided to applicants is as complete as possible 
  • Regarding ASP, it starts at the end of this year and it is clear that the on the ground people working in GSE will be a large driver in promoting the program. When will information be provided to the At-Large community?  
    • At-Large community notes that the ASP program advertisement starts in September and would like to be prepared to disseminate this information in a timely manner 
      • ICANN org team is finalizing a list of targets and plan to share this information in next 2-3 weeks. There is an opportunity to identify and collaborate on addressing gaps. GSE is eager to work with RALOs and ALSes as well. 
  • ICANN org invites RALO participants and the At-Large community to participate in monthly calls regarding the Next Round Program 
  • What is the fee for this upcoming round? For ASP, how much funding has been set aside for this ogramn?
    • There was a IRT presentation regarding fees prelim assessment 200k to 290k per application. ASP has not been finalized. 
  • Could ICANN org elaborate on why the ten countries were chosen. What factors led them to be chosen and will those factors be impactful to the next phase of the plan?
    • ICANN org looked at quantitative and qualitative metrics such as GDP, internet penetration, infrastructure, and literacy. Also looked at the feasibility of applications from certain regions
    • There will be similarities to the list provided for the next phase but will be enhanced and may include additional countries
    • ICANN org is working with a subset of the Next Round IRT to get their input. 
  • Is At-Large able to comment on GSE outreach plans or is it to be implemented as is?
    • Outreach plan will not be put out for public comment but org welcomes the feedback from the At-Large community 
    • The At-Large community emphasized the importance of having the outreach information expeditiously  
  • Are there plans to support a pilot in a developing country to showcasing new gTLDs?  
    • The org will be providing case studies on how new gTLDs have been used since the last round. This information can be used as examples for other applicants to use to promote their TLDs and plan for TLD operations  
  • Awareness will be important and will require additional collaboration from GE, GSE, and GAC, which will be important in getting formation to the right people within governments. There will be continued efforts for engagement and new gTLDs in Africa. GSE did not exist in 2012, Org has far more intelligence now on the needs of different regions. 
  • Current fee is out of reach for most of the Africa region. In 2012, the AGB had 300+ pages - ease of entry will be needed to encourage applicants. The ASP Pro Bono services will be important to help applicants 
  • ALS are well placed to undertake outreach and engagement programming 
  • What can the At-Large community do to help this program? What opportunities exist within At-Large that can be utilized to promote the Next Round Program
    • More capacity building opportunities would help ALS and community leaders with disseminating information 
    • ICANN continues to collaborate with organizations to reach the potential applicants suited for this initiative
    • Lack of Business cases and awareness were noted reasons why potential applicants did not apply in previous round 
    • Coalition work could be conducted between GSE and governments, especially within smaller countries, to promote the Next Round 
    • Market analysis should be conducted to determine what areas should be targeted, especially since the market has changed significantly since the opening of the previous round 
  • It will be important to reach out to active ALSes, there are a number of ALSes that are not active.   ALSs can raise awareness, build capacity for different stakeholders as we have been doing it for UA for example.  Work with ICANN on the benefits of New gTLDs. 

Action Items 

  • ICANN org to provide Outreach and Engagement materials to ALAC leadership. Initial set of materials is being finalized and will hopefully be shared by the end of the month. 

  • At-Large/RAOs should work on:

    • A precise definition of the kind of support the ALSes may provide to the ICANN Com team in their campaign  
    • A clear and precise process for that, and a defined framework for the actions to be undertaken by the ALSes


Joint Session: ALAC & SSAC

High-Level Notes

  • There are evergreen topics that both groups are interesting in discussing. Both Advisory Committees appreciate the commitment to safety and security and the continued collaborative spirit.
  • Jonathan Zuck provided an overview of the first draft of the safer cyber campaign course
    • A lot of course focuses on phishing since that is what many end users deal with
  • How will ALAC get people to see this presentation?
    • Could be delivered as a seminar for audiences. Would take a UA day model approach to delivering this content to end users
    • Could also be added to the ICANN learn platform. Could also be added to other media platforms.
    • Current focus is on ALAC stakeholders. Once there’s more success to it, it could spread further
  • Safer Cyber is of importance to users around the world. SSAC can provide information about cyber security and packaged by ALAC

SAC074

  • Intent is to take technical material and making it more digestible for a non-technical audience
  • This is an advisory on credential management
  • SAC040 and SAC044 also provided advice on credential management and end user protections
  • There are multiple ways credentials can be compromised
  • Overall, SAC074 provides best practice guidelines to registries, registrars, and registrants on protecting personal credentials
  • OCTO Technical Engagement provided an overview of its remit
    • OCTO has a course on credential management
  • Inside SSAC, there is some level of consensus and interest that group expects to stay engaged in
    • Security, Stability and Resilience (SSR) in new gTLD’s
    • DNS protocol issues
    • DNS abuse
    • Alternative name spaces
    • SSR aspects of internet governance
  • The community can request training by OCTO by emailing OCTO

NCAP

  • Overview was provided about what Name Collisions are and it’s importance. Introduction of new TLDs increases likelihood of collisions
  • There have been evolutions in DNS protocols and other technologies, root server data is no long the only and most efficient way for assessing the risk of name collision
  • There is a lack of consistency as there’s no centralized location to assess risk with data needed
  • NCAP 2 recommends an assessment framework with 4 key features
    • Integrated risk assessment
    • Technical Review Team (TRT)
    • Enhanced Data Collection
    • Multiple Assessment Methods
  • Name Collision process is roughly 4 stages
    • Applicant identifies potential issues using publicly existing data
    • TRT reviews available data
    • ICANN temporarily delegates string into root
    • TRT submits recommendations the Board for Board to decide whether application should move forward
  • Controlled interruptions worked in 2012 round but may not be the most efficient way to assess the risk of name collisions in the next round
    • Controlled interruptions does not work with IPv6
    • Root Servers and Resolver Operators are seeing less data now compared to 2012 due to technological and regulatory changes
  • There are concerns regarding privacy in data collection
  • TRT is essential to dealing name collisions going forward. It would be a highly technical and highly skilled activity. There’s no generalized solution to name collisions 
  • Idea is to have test conducted before delegation but after the TLD has been awarded
    • Personal Identification Information is going to be an issue regardless of where the test is conducted
  • SSAC has been having discussions with Board Committees and understands that it is up to the board to decide on a way forward
  • The ALAC has been discussing auctions with GAC and Org. One recommendation is to have auction be part of application process. It would help mitigate issue of data manipulation is contention info collected at the start of application processing.
    • If list of applicant TLDs published, it could be gamed ahead of time.
    • No statement on when analysis should be done was intentional.
    • Challenge with auctions is that there are already approved recommendations about auctions of last resort. The two issues are separate and should not be conflated.  
  • There are no recommendations from the SubPro Final Report on what method is to be used. Controlled Interruption will continue to be used until Board adopts a new method.
  • There will continue to be concerns regarding privacy and timing

Action Items 

  • No action items recorded. 


Wednesday, 12 June 2024

Joint Session: ALAC & GAC

High-Level Notes

Contention Resolution

  •  An overview of what contention resolution is and its history. 
  • The ALAC and GAC would like to avoid a repeat of the previous rounds contention resolution method. 
    • It will be difficult to prevent gaming. 
  • ALAC recommends banning private resolution and supports the idea of having auctions be part of application process. 
    • all the org's analysis would only need to be once since it would take place at the beginning of the application assessment process. The applicants would submit bid with application. 
    • there may be opportunities to game the application process through name collisions. 
  • Joint ventures is an option for resolving contention resolution, though there were no joint ventures formed during the last round. 
  • Bid multiplier would be for non-commercial applicants and successful applicant support applicants. 
  • The Board has issued resolution on contention resolution. Board intends to not adopt GAC advice on contention resolution as they relate commercial vs non-commercial applicants. 
  • The Board has been looking into this issue and commissioned a report by NERA. The report looks into ways to disincentivize private auctions without totally banning them. 
  • The Board has not yet decided on how to resolve contention resolution issue. There is pressure to resolve this issue because of the timing of the Next Round. Contention resolution will be discussed during within the Next Round IRT. 
  • With sealed bid, applicants would not know whether they were in contention until after bid is paid out. 

ASP

  • Applicant Support Program is of importance to the ALAC and GAC. The ALAC was provided an overview of the outreach and engagement plan.
  • The ALAC believes this is a good time to begin an awareness program and would provide targeted audience with enough time to begin
  • The ALAC would like to collaborate with the GAC on ways to up outreach and enagement. The ALAC highlighted that outreach and engagement materials are being developed by ICANN org. 
  • ASP remains a key topic of interest. The ASP should promote diversification in TLD space.
  • ASP Recommendaiton 17.2 has been apporves by the Board. The GAC looks forward to a holistic program being implemented 
  • The ALAC and GAC have met outside of ICANN meetings to talk about issues related to the next round program. They provided correspndence during intersessional time. 
    • GAC ASP Small Team will be having Bilateral with ICANN staff to brainstrom on ways to communicate efficenitly in lead up to ICANN81
    • The GAC is still reviewing questions regarding ASP, such as first come first serve issue. The GAC looks forward to working together with the ALAC on mutual issues of interest. 
    • Joint capacity sessions are an option for both parties to discuss ways forward. 
  • ASP Applications should not be judged based on timing of submission. 
    • Applicants should be aware of what the process will be, especially if applicants must consider if first come, first serve is applied.  
    • Would first come, first serve be a way to solve contention resolution 
      • this may be viewed as a risk issue
  • Is there any intention an action plan about creating awareness for O&E plan about what the GAC needs to do to support the second phase? 
    • The GAC has asked for clarification on budget and financial parameters with regard to ASP. There are also discusiooonis taking place reagrding back-end registry service platforms. 
  • The AGB and materials will be translated to UN language, need to recognize that those are not all the languages spoken in the world, and will require time and resources to translate to the right languages. The GAC would like for there to be an equitable chance for applicnats to submit. This is a reason why they do not like the idea of first come first serve for ASP 
  • When will the app round start?
    • ASP will launch 12 months before the application window starts and is expected to launch Q4 2024. Raising awareness should start now. 
    • Community Awareness campaign should be taking place now and ending around October 2024. Materials from ICANN org is needed to help with comm awareness campaign. 
  • First come, first serve is a bad idea. Could joint communication be published to either force all languages should be done and then first come first serve, or have all applications reviewed at once for ASP. Applications should be treated equally, this is the point of having a application window 
  • Will ASP will receive more applications due to the rise in fee cost?
    • The GAC advocated for a complete waiver for those applying in ASP. Currently looks like there will be a large fee reduction for ASP applicants. If there are more than anticipated applicants, GAC might ask Board to consider more funding for successful applicants
  • How we distribute efforts for outreach and engagement?
    • through GGP, specifc targets for ASP were debated and agreed upon. Board has accepted the GGP Recommendaiotns. GAC has a specific definition for underserved regions 

Action Items 


At-Large Cross RALO Coordination Session

High-Level Notes


TOPIC : ALAC - RALO communications 

  • We need to have shared expectations/best practices on collaboration and communications with ALAC
  • Greg Shatan's suggested : Putting together a list of common written expectations between RALO ALAC representatives and RALOs. Suggestion received support.
  • Jonathan Zuck - it is reasonable to treat ALAC members as representative of RALOs. Main reason to have ALAC members in the meetings  is to amplify At-Large/ALAC positions where it matters. ALAC members should make regional reports with respect to RALOs policy positions, not with regards to O/E as ALAC is not owed a report.

Action Items 

  • Ozan Sahin and Nathalie Peregrine were asked to have the CROP rules and procedures translated in other languages (FR and ES) as they are not widely understood by all. 

Joint AFRALO-AfrICANN Meeting

The group discussed the statement “Bridging the Digital Divide: Empowering Africa through Multilingual Internet Infrastructure.” The statement recognizes Africa’s diverse linguistic landscape, which includes more than 2,000 spoken languages, and highlighted several recommendations to achieve a multilingual internet in Africa.

Action Items 

  • Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong  and Hadia Elminiawi to edit the statement incorporating suggestions as follows" Second recommendation- include the "number of root services instances". Edit under "Capacity building" instead of "advocate and promote - "building capacity and skills across Africa".  Spell out DNS Industry including Internet service providers and hosting providers.
  • Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong to send the AFRALO-AFRICANN statement (once finalized) to staff to forward to the Board.


Thursday, 13 June 2024

At-Large ISOC Chapter Roundtable

High-Level Notes

  • All ISOC members present introduced themselves.
  • The vision and mission of ISOC and ICANN was presented
  • ISOC’s website has the expectations of the chapters
  • The role of ISOC Chapters and ALS, ALS can assist ISOC Chapters and vice versa.
  • They considered setting up a whatsapp chat.
  • This is a subset within At-Large.  not a preferential but being a subset has advantages. 
  • All ALS are the same. ISOCs are not a privileged class within At-Large
  • There is not much funding from ICANN for ALSes (limited)
  • ISOC does provide grants, administrative funding which can be used to advance ISOC mission, but it can also be used to advance the At-Large mission.
  • Discussion of ISOC role within ICANN, we need to enhance everybody’s participation. ISOC Chapters have tools in common, we can discuss practices that we can put into place.
  • Important to make the comparison between ISOC Chapters and ALS. ISOCs have a regional person in charge to follow up. ISOC has a manager who follows up with activities.
  • We can have a score- give grades. ISOC Chapters receive a minimum of 3,000 $ per year as administrative funding on the condition that they are active and administer their chapter. This is very important.
  • JZ mentioned the “global campaign” as there are a lot of messages that need to get out to the global community.
  • JZ presented the Campaign playbook.
  • ISOC chapters found this discussion is interesting and helpful to strengthen the communication channels and means of cooperation between ISOC and ICANN & ALAC for the welfare of the global community. Hope to keep the momentum onwards.
  • Follow up- Greg Shatan – invited all to the Community Forum in Seattle. Suggested next time to hold a similar meeting in Seattle, Greg offered to organize the meeting at the Community forum.

Action Items 

At-Large Leadership Wrap Up Session

High-Level Notes

  • Amrita C. provided an overview of the work of the Internet Governance Forum Support Association, its remit, and its reach. 
  • Primary purpose of the association is to support the IGF and its initiatives. 
  • Justine C. provided an update on the GNSO Council meeting
  • Matthias H. provided a short update on the SSAC sessions and highlighted a discussion on AI, and cybersafe campaign with the ALAC 
  • Joanna K. provided an update about the GAC session that was held with the ALAC. There may be additional joint correspondence between the ALAC and GAC. There are opportunities to work intersessionally with the GAC. 
  • If ALAC advice is issued on contention resolution, a method on how it can be mitigated should be added. 
    • taking opportunity for private resolution out of the equation
  • Session reports should highlight action items that ALAC should tend to 
  • Avri discussed in covering the session reports the topics of PICs/RVCs, Applicant Support, registration data access, and DNS Abuse.  
    • Justine also covered the fees that are being discussed for Next Round applications and bid credits for Applicant Support.  
  • Reminder from Justine to work on ALAC Procedure for filing comments and objections in the Next Round. 
  • Claire provided an overview of the remit of the OFB-WG. 
  • Maarten Botterman provided an overview of the ICANN Strategic Plan
    • Board to adopt the plan by March 2025
    • A public comment is scheduled for 09 July 2024 and a community webinar will be available to discuss the Strategic Plan
  • Hadia E. provided an overview of AFRALO sessions that took place at ICANN80. AFRALO provided advice that is impactful to the Africa region. 
  • Denise H. provided an update about the NextGen program participants 
  • Sheerdeep R. provided an update about the Fellowship program participants. Highlighted that previous Fellows are stepping into ALAC leadership rolls 
  • Bukola O. provided an udpate about social media enagement within the ALAC and at-large community. Contest winners were announced. 
  • Jonathan Z. announced that he will be unavailable for the next 45 days. He has delegated responsibility to Claire Craig and Justine Chew. 
  • Heidi U. announced that Claudia Ruiz will be transitioning to the ccNSO team. 

Action Items 

  • PICs/RVCs to be discussed in CPWG call. 
  • ALAC to have call with ICANN80 NextGen and Fellowship participants. 
  • No labels